My, my, my. Zero sum game....or can both of us be right and wrong as variously assessed across the divide?

Pragmatism: How do we "know" what we know? Perhaps most relevant to this discussion: what is our risk tolerance??

One even main reason I love the subject of AGW is because it is not subject to "common sense" and its variants. So..... we get science (pragmatism).... and we get emotions (greed, politics, religion, egotism, fetal alcohol syndrome....etc<<should I highlight my own personal humor here?.....Nah.) Common sense is another favorite subject of mine. How to apply it..... when not to. Its common sense that if you add a green house gas to an atmosphere that said atmosphere should get warmer? Makes Sense. But contra: common sense also informs us that the whole big natural world is very complicated and what makes sense at first blush often is completely wrong over a longer term of appreciation. Like introducing pigs to an island to forage for food on their own to be collected later for an ocean voyage. Pigs eat all the vegetation and die of starvation. Ship now has no pork...and no vegetables and fruit. Happens all the time. (Edit: more relevantly, the Gaia Effect where more co2 simply causes plants to grow more vigorously...allowing some ignoramuses to claim its "good" for us/the planet.)

It is kind of ironic, Bobbo, that you term yourself pragmatic. //// Yes. that is my guiding star that by statement admits to error...and the resulting opportunity to learn. How open are we to our own errors? Lance: how would you characterize your own approach, your own appreciation, your own stretch goals?

Your proper name is Bobbo the superstitious. //// I can always be wrong…. But superstitious? Shirley you jest. In the area of AGW, everything I think/say is “grounded” in the reports from the IPCC, NASA, and popular dumbed down reviews of same. Can one be superstitious when applying Science?.............. Its definitional.

Your firm belief in future catastrophe is based on emotion, not logic, and is therefore superstition. //// No. Future catastrophe is based on the trend lines shown and discussed in the Science of the issue. “If present trends continue…..”….. and what is “actually” being said? You know a “high likelihood of collapse of ocean food web” applies directly to hoomans living on the land. Its never said…..we are left to find our own dots.

Every time you come up with another spurious rationalisation to support your belief in catastrophe, you demonstrate once more your superstition. /// You have a fine diatribe, well articulated, missing only the fact that its backed up with official IPCC reports……with the caveat of the very import of this thread. “What does what is said by the IPCC actually indicate in practical ((pragmatic)) application?”

LiKE the straw man statement about me claiming more CO2 and then continued increasing CO2 leading to warming stopping. I have never said that, and your false claim is just another rationalisation for superstition. //// Excellent. Lets review what you did say whittled down to the most erroneous:

“….Do not forget that the sea level rise over the next 100 years is only half a meter, and we have no guarantee that there will be any more after that…..”

A half meter (and I do note your generous increase over your first expression of the one foot rise) is only the result from one set of assumptions……ON THE LOW END. What about the other 7 graph lines all higher that show much higher sea level rise? If I am superstitious by using the highest line, what are you by using the lowest? Note a CONSTANT criticism/amendment of the IPCC reports/prognostications is that the IPCC is too conservative. Co2 is “driving” climate change. So…I have never read anywhere that co2 increase, sea level increase … all the increases… is somehow going to stop or level off after 100 years. In a very real sense this is THE VERY DANGER WE ARE FACING: the lag time and build up of carbon will continue to have its negative effects for DECADES after its percentage increase in the atmosphere levels off. Your statement REVEALS its paucity of understanding the BASE NATURE of the threat of AGW. So…yes…I assume co2 contribution will increase or best realistic case be level in the future. This is very bad. Our atmosphere will continue to heat at levels above 350ppm. We are over 405ppm right now headed up at accelerating rates. NO ONE is talking about actual carbon removal to get back below 350. What data do you use to suppose sea level rise is going to stop? I was TOO GENEROUS. Co2 pollution needs to REVERSE: not just stop. You have nothing but argument from ignorance.

On factories in Japan.No. They will not be moved to slopes of 25 degrees or more. Japan has lots, and lots of high ground that is much flatter than that. //// Lots and lots huh? Ever been to Japan? Looked at a Map. Absorbed TJ’s post on the issue/stats? Japan an island, is not like New Zealand, an island. Japan is more like mountain tops sticking out of the Ocean. New Zealand, more built up, continental. Just Look. …….. or with evidence given to your otherwise, don’t just mindlessly waive it away.

Most of Japan is well above the half meter that sea levels will rise over the next 100 years, and most of Japan is well above 3 meters, which is all sea levels are likely to rise to even in 300 years. Your alarmist arguments are just plain silly. //// Most of Japan isn’t the issue. Its what civilization needs to support populations of any given size. Mountainous terrain doesn’t support as many people as flat lands. Dare I say: common sense.??? Where populations can live and grow food is not based on average elevations of land or sea either but are habitable/usable or not based on how often 100 year natural events occur. So….. Japan….. actually a fairly “objective” issue none of us have the interest to “study:….. although various resources do project land inundation at various sea level rises. Probably…. Not that hard to find. I’ll take TJ’s word for it until negated.

You have fallen smack into the middle of the nowcast fallacy. You look at one trend and assume it will continue, and make prediction by ignoring every other trend. Like predicting disaster by global warming, and totally ignoring all the trends in both reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the trends in future technological capability. //// You got any trend line at all that shows co2/temps/sea level rise being negated or reversed? I’ve never seen one. Or do you view your argument from Fantasy as a trend?

Ironically, the USA is emitting less greenhouse gas now than it has in 30 years. The reason is a technological advance celled fracking, which opened up natural gas. This permitted gas to be burned instead of coal. Since burning gas emits far less greenhouse gas per unit energy than burning coal, this led to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. //// Last I heard its because the greatly covered up methane gas releases aren’t being reported. Perhaps too early in the stats collection process to be correctly assessed. And lets not forget: a flat line on emitting greenhouse gas is still catastrophic to the longer term survival of civilization. What USA is doing is great. China and India each building a huge coal fired power plant every week with pollution achieving toxic cloud status.

Future technological advances will mean even less dependence on fossil fuels. For example, advances in battery technology are rapidly leading to cars that do not use fuel. /// No fuel huh? Kinda the same basis as your Fantasies? To be fair, actually factual: the fuel electrical cars use is created mostly by coal that is burned 300 miles away in large plants. Life time analysis of energy efficiencies involved: less pollution than gas vehicles, but still a burden to the environment. Not until cars get their fuel from Solar will that technology be a help. Its coming that’s true but that’s the very issue. Across the board, we have technological solutions on the drawing boards. Will those boards get water logged before the solution is GAINED or not? It is indeed a race of competing trend lines. All the trends I see show: we aren’t going to make it.

There are advances in nuclear power which will lead to reduced dependence on fossil fuels for generating electricity. When the Trump moron is gone, the USA, and other nations will develop these alternatives, and fossil fuel useage will diminish. /// the main trend is that as power requirements are constantly increasing, more of all power sources will be required. So, while China installs more solar every year than the rest of the world combined….. it also builds more coal powered plants as well. See the trend?

Of course, you, Bobbo, will not believe it since it is not yet happening. Typical nowcast fallacy. /// So…. Your fantasy advice/comfort level/head in the sand is that one should ignore what IS HAPPENING in favor of what is not yet happening? THAT is a few steps below superstition.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Not sure that I can respond to your whole post, since you wrote so much, but here are a few points.

You talk of 'common sense', but you clearly do not realise that science is NOT based on this silly value. Science is NOT based on common sense, but rather on what people discover actually is real, whether it meets the 'common sense' standard or not. There is no 'common sense' in quantum physics. Quite the reverse. Anyone who adheres to 'common sense' is no scientist.

When I call you superstitious, it is because of your adherance to the idea of future catastrophe. Not anything to do with the IPCC, which does not predict the demise of the whole human species, as you do. Oleg pointed out that there was a time when global warming reached more than double what we can expect, and life flourished. Gawd tried to say that flourishing did not apply to humans. But humans are the MOST successful and flexible of all mammals, able to live in any terrestrial environment on Earth. No other animal can do this. So if other life flourishes, we can expect humans to flourish even more. Superstition is not to claim the world is warming, which we all know, but to claim that warming will kill off the most successful mammal species while sparing most others. Duh!!

As I pointed out before, there was a book published in 2001 detailing the catastrophist psychology. The author treated that attitude as if it were a mental illness, and I think he was not far wrong.

Sea level rise over the next 100 years. I suggested half a meter. I could be wrong, but that figure is actually close to the mean for various estimates. Since sea level rise is currently 3 mm per year on average, it could be as low as 30 cm, or about one foot. The maximum estimate I have seen is from your fellow catastrophist, Dr. Hansen, who suggests five meters. But Hansen bases that on a geometric increase in rate of increase, which simply has not happened. His estimate has already been shown to be incorrect, because if he was right, sea level rise would now be close to 1 cm per year, and it is not.

So get this straight, Bobbo. I am not a global warming denier. I am an existential catastrophe denier, which is quite different. Believers in that level of disaster believe in human species extinction, not because of trends or good data, but because of some quirk in psychology, making them superstitious with regard to that point.

TJ: you write hardly responding to what I said, but rather to what you have been saying all along: a rut. Like you can't follow the logic of the argument presented to you, all you can do/have done is repeat your own premise. Lack of engagement.

I responded to everything you said.

You responded to nothing I said.

Amusing?

Try again. Take what you think is your best DENIAL. Ha, ha.... first you might reconsider exactly what it is you are denying. Right now.... in the main: that somehow the effects of co2 will have some kind of limited application rather than what we can SEE RIGHT NOW.... simply aggregating. Take what IS PROJECTED.... even your one foot.... AND JUST KEEP GOING. What will happen? Should we deny that...... or take action to avoid it????

The 100 year time frame evaluated by the most conservative evaluations....but even then, just simply stopped. Its Magical not-Thinking.

do I "know". ................. No. but pragmatists who want civilization to continue do/should base their evaluation to the end on the worse but still reasonable case. One year ago...I included the Calthrate Gun. THIS VERY THREAD: I have removed it based on what I read. I know: very superstitious about ........... "facts."

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

JS: quite right. I argued AGAINST common sense and to follow the science: the entire body of it. Not cherry picked distractions for those charged with FUD. Or to restate it as Lance did as if not understanding what was posted. I know: I responded "too much." Better to ignore half and misunderstand the other half.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: you write hardly responding to what I said, but rather ...

Sorry - but I am quite limited for time. Lots of ongoing projects - wall papering, block wall repair, shed base build, Decopon (Sumo in US) planting, tree trimming, weeding, harvesting oranges, etc. - all within these past few days. It takes more dedicated time to dig in and respond in depth. But do take cheer - at least I don`t post selfies like our resident denier...

On our land availability to contend with sea level rises - our mountains are high and can be leveled, at great cost of course. But that is what we are already doing to create housing tracts and of course to obtain the rock and soil for roads, etc. Given that concrete has a usable life of 50 years, more or less, we really need to be starting now to address even the more modest estimates of sea level rises. (Remembering that each years` addition is contributory - meaing that we already have 50 years worth of investment that needs to be addressed.) Breakwaters, coast hugging roads and bridges, etc. - all will need to be addressed.

EDIT.... BTW, the rest of your post above - seems not directed to me, but to whom?

Japan, as has already been said, is mountainous. It has peaks above 3000 meters. But it has a hell of a lot more peaks under 1000 meters. Like most mountainous areas, there is a lot more area in the form of foothills than in the form of mountains. Sure, the most populated areas are low lying, but most of that area is well above the half meter the sea is expected to rise in 100 years, and most is above the 3 meters it "might" rise in the subsequent few centuries. If it was as low as Bobbo has tried to say, the tsunami of the last major earthquake would have killed a lot more people. Millions instead of thousands.

Japan is also wealthy, and over the next few centuries can be expected to be able to use that wealth to build protective structures. Sea level rise will be a pain in the arse for the Japanese, but not an existential catastrophe.

TJrandom wrote:EDIT.... BTW, the rest of your post above - seems not directed to me, but to whom?

Yep. My apologies, the entire post was directed at Lance, but misdirected. I suppose: "...♫...You are always on my mind.....♫..." Probably "not healthy" that when I think of disagreeing with someone, I think of you?

In fact, I thought your response was very satisfactory and detailed enough not to require repetition.... but you added a few more facts. I hope you take solace in the Rosy Future adamantly clung to by Lance.

Lance: do you have any reference/link / comment/paper at all that suggests the effects of AGW will no longer be of concern X years into the future? Do you really "think" human kind will get along if the only ill effect of AGW was all the ice melting raising the sea level by 180 feet?

Now...taking the worst outcome off the table, I do think it is "unavoidable" that sea level rise will continue to the Max. If not in 100 or 200 years..... then in 300 or 400. What in the world will stop it?......AND THE ANSWER IS: co2 ppm BELOW 350ppm. We don't have any technology right now that can scale to any proportion to provide that.... much less the investment that would require... WHILE moving our cities, bringing agriculture indoors to hydroponics and so forth...... or level Japan? Ha, ha.......like all too many "solutions"...... you can say the words very easily but what does it really entail in REALITY? Besides all the energy (ie more co2 pollution) it requires to flatten mountains....its well known that such operations releases all kinds of toxic metals into the ground water.

Will human kind survive a gradual enough to respond to sea level rise? Most certainly. Will human civilization? That is the relevant discussion of this thread..........I think not. maybe for a few generations in some valley somewhere where a survivialist Geek has his own generator....but the ongoing flowering of technology that marks our current stage? My imagination doesnot expand so. Seems to me, whatever pockets might survive or struggle along would be the constant target of conquest to whatever is outside the wall.

......................and .................. I could be wrong.

Could you be wrong Lance?

What should we be doing RIGHT NOW????? About the very opposite of what we are doing. A moon shot for energy independence based on SOLAR. it could be done relatively painlessly even now...... if the nay sayers would get out of the way. The German experience is very demonstrative...... but we need a moon shot program to save the rest of the World.........350ppm I think is still a valid maximum pollution level for consequences not to eventually follow. We are over 400ppm and still going. More people... more co2..... even with solar coming on strong at 3%.

We could have been great.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I have never said that global warming would cease to be of concern X years in the future. Please do not throw straw men.

On your ridiculous suggestion that sea levels might rise 180 feet.This could only happen if ALL the ice in Antarctica melted. Now, bearing in mind that a lot of the ice sheet on that continent is two to four KILOMETERS thick, and that the average temparature over most of Antarctica is less than minus 30 Celsius, do you really think a global warming average temperature rise of 4 Celsius will melt ALL the ice in Antarctica?

If you believe that, then let me interest you in buying an estate I own on the moon.

Will human civilisation survive a gradual rise in sea level. Almost certainly, yes.This rise will take a long, long time. That is something,. Bobbo, that I think you continuously ignore. Half a meter in 100 years, and possibly up to 3 meters over the subsequent 300 years. Sure, that is an estimate, and there is a big error factor, but it is the most probable estimate. Plus or minus a bit.

The land swallowed by that rise is a tiny fraction of the land area of the world. Over that length of time, humanity can very easily adapt.

Lance: I did some google on (ipcc most likely scenario) and have to agree "it looks like" the change will be more gradual than what I thought................UNLESS.............. we move to what I actually posted which includes the 3---400 year time frames.

On your ridiculous suggestion that sea levels might rise 180 feet.This could only happen if ALL the ice in Antarctica melted. Now, bearing in mind that a lot of the ice sheet on that continent is two to four KILOMETERS thick, and that the average temparature over most of Antarctica is less than minus 30 Celsius, do you really think a global warming average temperature rise of 4 Celsius will melt ALL the ice in Antarctica?

Yeah.... I don't know.... my gut says with 4C rise "of course" all ice on Earth would "eventually" melt. I suppose it would be easy enough to look up...but...your analysis/orientation/risk analysis all have a end stasis point. Why would temp increase stop at 4C? Why would ice stop melting? Why would ocean rise stop???? You see the issue??????

....................... Its risk tolerance. or maybe more closely...responsible stewardship for our kiddies. All this co2 is very much like taking (not borrowing) from the future and increasing pressures on them for nothing more than laziness on our part. A lot of my "negative attitude" comes from flying airplanes. Thats all about "what is happening ... NOW!!" Like fuel management. You might be four hours from land but if you have only 3 hours of fuel..... you have to think about what is GOING TO HAPPEN. Same with flying Good Ship Mother Earth. Call me pessimistic.... I always want 5 hours of fuel..........co2 footprint not relevant to this discussion.

I do think an overly lackadaisical attitude even short of disbelief is not going to get the job done. Always err on the side of too much gas.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

BobboThe reason warming will stop at 4 Celsius is because people will be doing what they have to to mitigate it. You are operating on a 'business as usual' model, with continued, or increasing, fossil fuel burning. That has already begun to change. Humanity stopped the ozone hole, and will stop global warming. Sure, it will take time.

You may note that the Paris Accord is based on stopping warming after 2 Celsius rise. That will not happen. But I am being realistic in suggesting a 4 Celsius rise, with reasonable efforts by people to stop the warming. Your emotion based idea that it will continue to warm well beyond 4 Celsius is not realistic, because humanity is not TOTALLY stupid.

On melting all the ice in Antarctica and causing 180 foot sea level rise.You may note that not one single reputable climatologist predicts this. Not even the extremist Dr. Hansen. Climate scientists know that is not going to happen, Bobbo, so you should not suggest it either.

Paris Accord Target of 2C: published with footnote that everyone "knew" the target would never be hit.

"“Carbon cuts resulting in the proposed international target of two degrees Celsius warming could reduce these numbers to […] 4.7 metres in sea level rise and 280 million people,” they write." //// No feel at all for the 4.7 meters but with that, 280 million strikes me as "low." Of interest: The {!#%@} fit being thrown around now regarding immigration numbers in the low thousands. IE: Its not that hoomans could not adapt to new conditions, its simply that we wont.

I agree the complete melting of ice is hard to find. I challenge you to present the subject ................. lets google: (total ice melt)===> "However, all the ice is not going to melt. The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, has survived much warmer times." http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/aska ... tion18.php (OK....looks like I am too pessimistic? But I still wonder what temp would melt all the ice? .... and what the confidence level is.)

Of note: the one meter rise by 2100 is for "Nordic Countries" while Copenhagen is predicted to have 4.6 meters. Pretty dramatic demonstration that sea level is not "the same" the world over?...... and how easy it is to not fully comprehend the data sets if someone wants to Cherry Pick.

Still of concern--Greenland will melt and could do so "overnight." (Lost the link... too tired to look again)

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

And the Earth could get hit by a giant asteroid and turn to molten magma. Forget the low probability ideas and stick with what is likely to happen.

Likely is a half meter sea level rise over 100 years. Possibly more in the next few hundred years. But humans will be working to mitigate as much as possible of those effects.

Sea level will not rise to the same extent everywhere, of course. Some more. Some less. The worst effects will be low lying islands like the Maldives. I note that the government of the Maldives has already bought up a heap of land in Western Australia.

Some cities will need to build giant sea walls, like the Dutch dykes, but more so. That will take resources, but fortunately the whole world is becoming wealthier, and the tools for such works are becoming more potent and more available. Maybe some corporation will design and build giant robots that do nothing but build sea walls? A small amount of the world's land area will be lost, but the vast bulk will remain. Even a five meter sea level rise will not inundate more than a tiny fraction of the land area.

I accept that global warming and sea level rise will be very destructive. But it will not wipe out humanity or destroy civilisation. More like a major inconvenience, and an absorber of a lot of wealth.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I accept that global warming and sea level rise will be very destructive. But it will not wipe out humanity or destroy civilisation. More like a major inconvenience, and an absorber of a lot of wealth.

Just watched a number of Youtube featuring our Hero Michael Schermer on panels regarding "Cognitive Dissonance" and how its most often resolved by doubling down or rationalization of original beliefs, or as you demonstrate: dogged repetition without ever dealing with the import of the opposing views.

I will declare VICTORY: there is essential equivalence between WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE (my phrasing due to its ever present "real" possibility always increasing as complacency and co2 build up waiting passively for magic technology to save the day) and your now stated position: "sea level rise will be very destructive" (now...add into that all the other AGW effects in addition to sea level rise and you got yourself VERY DESTRUCTIVE TIMES 5).

Amusing how dismissive you are about it. Your grandkiddies will damn you retrospectively, as I do now.

Contra, best case: we won't die, civilization will continue, BUT finally at the recognition of the Great Cost required to establish whatever average global temp is determined WITH a greatly reduced human carrying capacity of the planet for all the AGW effects -minus- all the Great New Technology. The bottle neck of 2300 when ears popped as people pulled their heads out of their asses. ((I do assume the recognition will come fairly soon now...20 years? while effective programs to counteract what we have done to follow decades later.))

ymmv.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

On April 22, 2015, the Chilean volcano Calbuco erupted, spewing volcanic ash 10 kilometers (six miles) skyward. But Calbuco didn’t just tear a hole in the Earth that day. A new study suggests it also tore a hole in the sky.

The new study argues that Calbuco’s eruption stretched the Antarctic Ozone Hole — the thinnest portion of the ozone shell that shields Earth from harmful radiation — to a record size nearly as large as Africa. It did so by ejecting millions of tiny particles that eat away at the Earth’s ozone layer, according to the study published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

I am not dismissive about global warming. I recognise it as a serious problem and a serious challenge. What I am dismissive about is your irrational and idiotic belief that we are all gonna die (well, due to global warming rather than old age). In fact I am derisive and in contempt of your ridiculous belief.

It may have escaped your notice, but the human species has ALREADY passed through a global warming episode that was far greater than the current one. That is, at the end of the last glacial period, in which sea levels rose 120 feet. Not only did the human species not die, but they grew in numbers and in capability. And that was when they had nothing more than stone tools.

I agree we have reached impasse. Each viewing the other as ...... we do.

............otoh........I remark again on your language becoming more concerned about the issue. From the neutral "we will adapt" to "it is a serious problem and a serious challenge." All with full knowledge of mistakes and missteps always inherent in taking on a serious challenge?

Would you support increased taxation or a shift in budgetary resources to AFFIRMATIVELY IMPLEMENT co2 reducing and sequestering technologies........or rather keep policies as they are and let market forces make whatever changes the market drives?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Humanity WILL adapt to whatever changes are thrust upon us. It is what we have always done and always will do. Tuaregs adapted to the desert, and Inuit to the Arctic. The difference this time is that humanity has more and better tools to make a better adaptation.

Do I support increased taxes?It depends. I support intelligent and rational approaches to solving problems. Taxes may or may not be such, depending on how they are used. Your question is just too general.

Mind you, I am fully in favor of massively increased taxes for the very rich. When someone like Dastardly Donald Trump can boast about not paying any taxes at all for over a decade, something is very, very wrong.

Lance: your rarely answer "easy" direct questions. Helps you to maintain your given positions on subjects: failure to engage the opposing evidence/arguments. When you do deign to respond, we get the completely artificial vague bs such as just above. ITS EITHER/OR. EITHER "some kind of tax/gubment program" ---OR--- Free Market forces as they may develop.

I understand you think you are being "sophisticated" by answering it depends.......and even defensive when commenting that Billionaires should pay some taxes.........but....... until you can answer simple direct questions, the more subtle responses will always be denied to you.

Don't that suck?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I am happy to answer specific questions. Not those filled with ambiguity.

I wIll tell you this, however. I am not one of the hairshirt brigade. That is. I do not believe that it will be necessary for people to make massive sacrifices to combat global warming. We need not suffer. There will be financial problems, but we can feed, clothe, and house all the people in reasonable comfort while we fight against global warming. There is no need to give up the family car (which may be running on battery power, or hydrogen). There is no need to cut down on use of electricity, which can be generated using methods that do not manufacture greenhouse gases. In fact, a higher standard of living can be made available to all the peoples of the world, including those currently starving in Africa. I tend to think that those who want to generate material sacrifice are criminals, since the impact will inevitably fall harder on the very poor, and many will die unnecessarily.

for the last 4-5 posts, prior to reading the new ones, I say to myself: "Let's back off ragging on Lance. We've expressed our positions, and disagreement on a complicated subject is to be expected." //// but then you keep writing the BS you do. AKA: bloviating NONSENSE. And I get all worked up. Somehow, you are more engaging to me than the BS put out by James Steele. I need to look deeper into myself to tease out the difference here. Not that I want to be an expert in BS... but it appears that is what on offer when it comes to AGW and the full range of the science denier community.

It is subtle. To say one thing but have it mean near the exact opposite. The truth, is simple and direct. BS is tortured and twisted with all kinds of ambiguity, fuzzy thinkings, logic errors, special vocabulary. Some has more undigested corn kernels than others.

Lance. IN THE CONTEXT of AGW what does your statement that " I recognise it as a serious problem and a serious challenge." even mean? You want to parse any gubmental response with exactly the right kind of tax or regulatory program, you say human kind has "time to adapt" and now you cap it with: "We need not suffer. There will be financial problems, but we can feed, clothe, and house all the people in reasonable comfort while we fight against global warming." ..................................... WTF? ........................................

Its rare to find such First World Privilege spoken by anyone with more than a High School Education. Hmmmm.... now, why do I assume that fits you? Nothing you say fits that description. "We" can't provide food and basic water and sanitation to 2 billion people WHILE we are burning through all of Earth's resources....and you think First World Middle Class Life Style will be available to all while we "fight global warming."

Well..... if we are going to have robots mining precious metals on asteroids at the same time.............. Sure. You are absolutely correct. Glad we put the whole issue to rest. Just "one" car though? Seems to me three are an absolute minumum. Go to Work. Trash Hauler. Hobby Car. Got to have three???

I mean, what kind of skeletal sacrifices do you include in "reasonable comfort?"

...................................................................................... Know what I mean?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:It is subtle. To say one thing but have it mean near the exact opposite. The truth, is simple and direct. BS is tortured and twisted with all kinds of ambiguity, fuzzy thinkings, logic errors, special vocabulary. Some has more undigested corn kernels than others.

Welcome to the Skeptics Society Forum.

Last edited by Major Malfunction on Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Major Mal: joined way back in 2006 huh? How much misery have you seen?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Bobbo ignores the lessons of recent history.The last 100 years has been a time of massive scientific and technological advance, coupled with a massive increase in health and well being for people everywhere. Third world peoples less so. But even in the third world, life span has more than doubled in 100 years.

There is no sign that this trend is changing. We can expect to continue to see science and technology grow, and life span to increase. Bobbo has this weird idea that it will all turn to custard, but there is absolutely no evidence whatever to suggest this. Sure, global warming is a big problem. But humanity has dealt with big problems before. My favorite is the irrigation water shortage in ancient Persia.

That was during the bronze age, with crappy tools available. There was plenty of water in the mountains, but the arable plains were dry. How to get water from the mountains to where it could be used to grow food? Canals were no good, since the desert heat would evaporate the water. So what they did was dig canots. These were tunnels just beneath the surface, carrying water. They were tunnels to prevent evaporation. They dug dozens of canots, up to some hundreds of kilometers long. Problem solved!

If the ancient Persians, with bronze tools, could do that, we can solve global warming without causing massive hardship to the peoples of the world. And the tools available to us just keep getting better and better.

My belief in the ability of humanity to rise to a challenge and solve problems is based on history. Bobbo's belief that it will all turn to custard is based on his emotions. Essentially, he is a pessimist, and cannot rise above his own emotional shortcomings.

"OTOH".... ha, ha.... maybe I'm overly influenced by making beer and wine? Little fellows grow real fast.... until they all die in their own waste products.

................Know what I mean?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Science is based on real world data.Bobbo, what I have stated is real world data. Recent history is real. Nothing of my statement is false. Your pessimism and belief in catastrophe, however, is false. It has the same basis as any religion. That is, blindness.

Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening.

Before this gets lost off of Vox, - there will be sacrifices if we are to meet that 2C target. Or if not personal sacrifices, at least personal decisions that people who care, will need to make – maybe to be early adopters of the latest technologies, to support efforts to mitigate CO2 additions, etc.

This article does not yet drive down to that personal level, but that is where we need to start focusing – educating people, and our political leaders, on what they need to do now, next year, and the years beyond that.

As I have said several times, the Paris Accord goal is unrealistic. Global warming will hit 4 Celsius. Even stopping it at that point will require positive changes. However, 4 Celsius is possible and practical. 2 Celsius is not.

As I have said several times, the Paris Accord goal is unrealistic. Global warming will hit 4 Celsius. Even stopping it at that point will require positive changes. However, 4 Celsius is possible and practical. 2 Celsius is not.

We had an interesting news item here in NZ. An idealist has come up with a plan for our local global warming mitigation. If NZ's almost five million people can plant 180 million native rain forest trees, their growth will absorb the emissions from our entire population. A challenge, but possible. I have already planted some hundreds on my own small piece of land. So I have done my share, plus the required contribution from some half dozen other people. I plan to continue planting.

There are numerous other ways of mitigrating global warming that do not require geo-engineering. It just requires the political will. Replace that idiot Trump.

As I have said several times, the Paris Accord goal is unrealistic. Global warming will hit 4 Celsius. Even stopping it at that point will require positive changes. However, 4 Celsius is possible and practical. 2 Celsius is not.

We had an interesting news item here in NZ. An idealist has come up with a plan for our local global warming mitigation. If NZ's almost five million people can plant 180 million native rain forest trees, their growth will absorb the emissions from our entire population. A challenge, but possible. I have already planted some hundreds on my own small piece of land. So I have done my share, plus the required contribution from some half dozen other people. I plan to continue planting.

There are numerous other ways of mitigrating global warming that do not require geo-engineering. It just requires the political will. Replace that idiot Trump.

That is fine - 2C not achievable, but if we now plan for a 4C target, it too will be missed - 6C, 8C? The point of the article is that real change is needed and new technologies need to be planned for and implemented. Certainly agree with replacing Trump - probably the greatest effect, and easiest to do.

I too have planted hundreds of trees, thousands actually - on strip mine ground we subsequently donated to the US Audubon Society for use as a nature reserve, thus ensuring it doesn`t get reverted to a housing tract, etc. I am not now involve in a similar activity, but do have 10 to 15 saplings that need to be transplanted this year - Paw Paws, and no place of my own to do so. Thus I will sneak out into the mountain forest to find a dead and falling tree, and take that spot - come May, a 2 litre bottle of water, while looking for mushrooms.

What I find most rewarding is seeing a tree, now 50/60 feet high, that I planted as a budding walnut seed some 50 years ago, which has been producing nuts for 30 or more years.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Science is based on real world data.Bobbo, what I have stated is real world data. Recent history is real. Nothing of my statement is false. Your pessimism and belief in catastrophe, however, is false. It has the same basis as any religion. That is, blindness.

Science is based on real world data. /// Correct...via measurement, experimentation, etc.===IE, not as you just did: History and Logic.

Bobbo, what I have stated is real world data. === No. You recounted History and Logic.

Recent history is real. === True. History is History, Science is Science. You know the difference, but aggressively ignore it.

Nothing of my statement is false. === Your premises are "true" but are Historical NOT SCIENCE.

Your pessimism and belief in catastrophe, however, is false. ==== Purely definitional. An issue you don't understand or deal well with.

It has the same basis as any religion. === Ha, ha. How's that? My concern is based on science...you are now up to 8C? Ha, ha...........I'd have to check my bible (IPCC) to see what the best/worst case scenario of that is. No doubt: your mishmash of conflicting recognitions. Hard but easy at the same time.

That is, blindness. === Rhetoric.

Good move on the trees though. A feel good move of negligible consequences, but feeling good is important too..... along the way to actual solutions.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I feel that you fail to understand what science is.History can be, and often is, science. Science is not a topic. It is a method. When a researcher seeks the truth using the scientific method, that researcher is doing science, whether he/she be physicist, historian, or psychologist.

On 4 Celsius.I did not say this was a target. I said it was more likely that the global average temperature would rise 4 C than 2 C, regardless of the Paris Accord. That realisation does not mean the rise will now be 6 C or 8 C. The rise will be what it will be. It is up to humanity to attempt to mitigate this as much as practically possible, and adapt to what we cannot mitigate. My personal opinion is that this is likely to be around 4 C, but the fact is that no one actually knows.

On planting trees.TJ, my kudos. Your plantings are most meritorious, and I applaud your efforts.I have a special love of trees. My father was the president of his local Tree Society, and spent his retirement running a non profit nursery and then planting out those trees in public places. He founded a public park surrounding a small hydro-electric lake, and planted some thousands of trees. As a teenager, I spent a lot of time working with his in those plantings, and there are now thousands of mature trees in that park, making a wonderful asset for the district.

I have a story about my dear old Dad. One of his Tree Society colleagues suggested to him that they should cut down a clump fo English gorse (see in NZ as a weed), and replace it with native rain forest trees. My father grinning and told him to follow. He went down on hands and knees and crawled under the gorse, to show him the entire area already planted out with young native tree plants. He had quietly done the job himself. Since then, the natives have grown up through the gorse canopy and shaded them out, killing the gorse. What is left is a wonderful selection of mature native rain forest trees.

When I became a land owner in my own right (small scale), I planted trees myself. I have planted many hundreds of native rain forest trees, and they are now reaching a good height. Planting trees generates many benefits, of which mitigating global warming is just one.

I Now own a plot of land just under two hectares (for ignorant Americans, you can imagine one hectare as one American football field. Close enough.) My land is mostly planted out with rain forest trees, and they are growing well.

As I have pointed out before, despite that moron Trump, the USA is emitting fewer greenhouse gases today than any time for the past 30 odd years. This is due to a technological advance, called fracking, which uncovers new natural gas fields. Burning gas instead of coal reduces CO2 emissions. More technological advances will inevitably have benefits in terms of reduced greenhouse gases.

"History is often Science." //// Good to know..... and looking something up in a book is often the Scientific Method I take it? You have just expanded my horizons......... or attempted to inject a load of FUD.

On 4 Celsius.I did not say this was a target. I said it was more likely that the global average temperature would rise 4 C than 2 C, regardless of the Paris Accord.

Ummm... you said more than that: "As I have said several times, the Paris Accord goal is unrealistic. Global warming will hit 4 Celsius. Even stopping it at that point will require positive changes. However, 4 Celsius is possible and practical." Nice bald assertions. Anything is possible...but how is 4C "practical"?

Practical: Concerned with actual use or practice. Can something that is not "in actual use" be practical?

Practicable: Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are. Sometimes confused with practical.

A subtlety lost on those who make no clean distinction between history and science?

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence) (Figure SPM.10)

Lots more there. Sea Level rise of .9 Meters, effects to continue for Centuries, acidification mentioned, Greenland Ice Sheets collapsing...evidently could take a millennium...but no one knows.

Is it me, or are the IPCC reports hard to read? They seem to go back and forth between dire warnings vs rosy possible conditions. I think they aren't clearly delineating when they switch from one RCP scenario to another..... or, its always late in the evening when I get around to reading them?

Thing is: I don't see anything but the tragedy of the commons here. Governments lying and cheating on any reached protocol to keep their own population happy. I apply what the salmon fishermen said a few decades ago. "We make our living from the Salmon...we have every reason to keep the population healthy and to preserve them." Makes sense doesn't it? But they screamed like Banshees when not allowed to fish their boats full and they had to be put out of business by governmental enforced quotas....and still we are losing the salmon.

One day...................................

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Trying to obscure the point?Of course looking something up in a book is not the scientific method. Academics who study history by looking it up in a book are NOT practising science. But historians who propose hypotheses, determine predictive tests based on those hypotheses, and then run the test, are. As I said, science is a method for finding truth. It is not a subject studied at school.

On the tragedy of the commons.Mostly this is a load of horse manure. Often people quote the tragedy of the commons to justify privatisation. But the history of private ownership is rife with examples of over-exploitation. Owning a coal mine does not stop someone stripping out every tonne of coal. Duh!

Control of resources held in common is best done by government action. We do not save elephants by handing them over to the poachers. We save them by setting up a government controlled program with rangers and solid policing. Your salmon fishermen will over fish the resource every time, without government controls.

As far as global warming is concerned, some equivalent of government control is needed. Like controlling ivory poachers, an over-riding authority with police power is needed. I am not advocating world government, but rather a cooperative effort between the various national governments. The Paris Accord is an example. The problem is when individual leaders fail to meet their responsibilities, as Trump is threatening.

You know what would be fun? Hearing what you think "the point" is. I can think of several, but they are all elucidated by my posts. Leaves me wondering if you have another word play fail.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote:Of course looking something up in a book is not the scientific method. Academics who study history by looking it up in a book are NOT practising science. But historians who propose hypotheses, determine predictive tests based on those hypotheses, and then run the test, are. As I said, science is a method for finding truth. It is not a subject studied at school.

Ha, ha.... more abysmal word play. Did you grow up speaking Maori? Something has to explain your lexicographical short comings. I agree, when anyone uses the scientific method they are acting as a scientist. I often think this when my souffle doesn't turn out....... because celebrity chefs and short order cooks are scientists too.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote:On the tragedy of the commons.Mostly this is a load of horse manure. Often people quote the tragedy of the commons to justify privatisation. But the history of private ownership is rife with examples of over-exploitation. Owning a coal mine does not stop someone stripping out every tonne of coal. Duh!

Do you recognize and intentionally ignore that my use of the commons while valid in its application has nothing to do with your response? Did you grow up speaking Maori?

Do you have any further second thoughts on the applicability of the theory to the present case? Raising the issue of private coal mines is actually right on the point (sic?==not your obscurant point I assume?) Private in this context being applicable to Nation States and their coal mines?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: Control of resources held in common is best done by government action. We do not save elephants by handing them over to the poachers. We save them by setting up a government controlled program with rangers and solid policing. Your salmon fishermen will over fish the resource every time, without government controls.

Tick Tock.......how long will it take you to recognize there is "NO GOVERNMENT" when it comes to mitigating/correcting the impact of AGW? ITS THE VERY REASON the tragedy of the commons is...... not horse manure. Not sheep manure, nor Maori Manure. Its CIVILIZATIONS' MANURE. Ain't that some nice word play? Or am I obscuring your point?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: As far as global warming is concerned, some equivalent of government control is needed. Like controlling ivory poachers, an over-riding authority with police power is needed. I am not advocating world government, but rather a cooperative effort between the various national governments. The Paris Accord is an example. The problem is when individual leaders fail to meet their responsibilities, as Trump is threatening.

I agree...some kind of equivalent is needed. Are you thinking of one that won't work, but sounds good on paper? You know: the Tragedy of the Commons, the Salmon Fishermen. Lots of Nation States who's very economy is based on burning fossil fuels will not go voluntarily back to riding camels in the desert, or allowing Nato to encircle and strangle them. They will agree on paper to meet targets though.

Ain't that a kick to the head? Tragedy appearing in more places than just the commons?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As I said, science is a method for finding truth. It is not a subject studied at school.

You know, I'm glad you have pointed this out. Wifey tells me she has a PHD in: "The History of Science" from the University of California at Davis. I've always wondered what she was doing away from home during the days and nights and weekends. She says she lectures on the subject at various places around the world. I'm gonna have to call her on her horse manure. Damn Higher Education....Its another tragedy I tells ya.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?